Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds from being appropriated by this Act for being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. Policies involving mandatory masks implementation are not about safety nor are they about science. Mask mandates are, at their core, about control.

Dr. Tom Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times opinion section called the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, found that there was no evidence that masks made any difference.

He found that wearing a mask in public places makes little or no difference in the number of infections. For my colleagues and friends on the other side who do privately believe that masks or a mask mandate should be in place, I would say that unfortunately mask mandates include all masks. Yet, the gold standard, N95 masks, have been proven ineffective.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I too believe in reaching for the moon, for achieving big things. We eradicated polio using science. We went to the moon using science. Mask mandates were based off of fear and control.

Dr. Jefferson goes on to say in his study that policymakers who impose mask mandates on Americans were convinced by nonrandomized studies--flawed observational studies not rooted in science. It was about control.

Mr. Chairman, I find, as a Member of Congress, any action of this body that infringes on liberty to be a problem, any action by this body that infringes on law to be a problem, and any action by this body that infringes the Constitution of this great country to be a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here in great opposition to using money to take the liberty away from hardworking Americans of freedom that has been fought for and bled for, and I will not rest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again, the administration's war on appliances continues.

First it was gas stoves, then it was water heaters, and now it is ice makers. I live in the country; I like a glass of iced tea--operative word there is iced.

The Department of Energy has proposed a rule to impose stringent regulations on commercial automatic ice makers in the name of energy efficiency. For my fellow Americans watching this amendment debate, if someone knocks on the door of your local business and tells you they are from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, don't answer.

We have seen this play before. In 2014, the Obama administration pushed a rule to force different sectors of the American economy to comply with more restrictive energy standards--targeting hotels, targeting hospitals, targeting schools, office buildings, supermarkets, and restaurants.

At the time, the proposed rule was projected to cost manufacturers $24 million over a 30-year period, about a quarter of industry's profits. That is what this rule would do. It is time to get the government out of the ice making business and get back to the business of achieving great things.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's sentiment, and I would just say that at a time when we have increased electrification in this country, at a time when we have continued stress and demand for electricity in this country--even in Tennessee the lauded and respected TVA had brownouts this past winter because of the demand for energy.

Rather than increasing our own energy production, rather than focusing on supporting a new innovative nuclear technology to expand our ability to be energy independent, to produce more energy, they are focusing on ice makers.

Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous. This is absurd. This is nothing more than a woke Biden administration that is, once again, regulating and rulemaking against businesses that ultimately will cost consumers more money.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source